Planning and Environment Law Update | [2026] QPEC 31
A recent decision of the Planning and Environment Court is essential reading for anyone developing solar farms or battery storage in Queensland. In X-Elio Sixteen Mile Solar Farm Pty Ltd v Western Downs Regional Council [2026] QPEC 31, Byrne KC DCJ held that the significant 2025 amendments to the planning framework for renewable energy projects apply to a development application that had been made, and even refused by the council, before those amendments commenced, because the application had not been “conclusively decided” while it remained the subject of an appeal. The practical consequence is that the appellant’s solar farm and battery applications are deemed never to have been properly made, and the merits of the appeal cannot be determined.
The decision also continues a theme from our recent recap of the Court’s decisions in the first half of 2026. As we noted in our article “Practice and Procedure,” in this jurisdiction how an appeal is run, and the legal framework in which it is decided, can matter as much as its merits. X-Elio is a striking example, because the appeal is heard anew and decided on the law as it stands at the time of the hearing, the 2025 amendments applied and displaced the merits of the solar farm and battery applications altogether.
Background
The appellant sought approval for a combined development application over rural land at Hopeland, about 25 kilometres south-east of Chinchilla, comprising a 420 MW solar farm, a standalone battery energy storage system rated at 140MW/240MW, and a reconfiguration of a lot to create a lease and access easement. The application was properly made in November 2023 and refused by Western Downs Regional Council in May 2024, and the appeal was filed in June 2024. Each part of the application was code assessable under the Western Downs Planning Scheme.
After the refusal, but before the appeal was heard, the planning framework changed. The Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 and its accompanying regulation commenced on 18 July 2025, and the Planning (Battery Storage Facilities) and Other Legislation Amendments Regulation 2025 took effect on 12 December 2025. Broadly, these amendments require solar farms of 1 MW or more, and battery storage facilities of 50 MW or more, to be supported by a social impact assessment report and community benefit agreements, make them impact assessable, and require assessment against the new State Code 26 (Solar Farm Development) and State Code 27 (Battery Storage Facility Development). For a “pre-existing application”, being one made but not “decided” before the relevant commencement date, the regulations deem a properly made application no longer to be properly made or accepted.
The legal issue
Unusually, both the appellant and the council argued that the amendments did not apply, on the basis that the application had been “decided” when the council refused it, before the amendments commenced. The Court was therefore required to decide, against the position of both parties, whether a council refusal that is under appeal means the application has been “decided” for the purposes of the transitional provisions.
The Court’s reasoning
Byrne KC DCJ held that “decided” carries a connotation of conclusiveness. A Planning and Environment Court appeal is a hearing anew, in which the Court stands in the shoes of the assessment manager, decides on the law and the facts as they stand at the time of the appeal, and gives no weight to the decision under appeal. On that footing, although there had been a decision at council level, the controversy over the application had not been conclusively decided while the appeal remained on foot, and it fell to be considered as though no decision had been made. The Court rejected the argument that other uses of “decided” in the Planning Act 2016 required a narrower reading, and held that the ordinary meaning was not ambiguous, so the explanatory notes relied on by the parties could not be used as an aid to construction and were, in any event, poorly worded and unpersuasive. Significantly, the Court observed that Parliament had the power to carve out applications decided at council level and under appeal, but had chosen not to do so, and that the task was to apply what had been enacted.
The decision
The Court held that the amendments apply to the material change of use applications for the solar farm and the battery system. The effect is that those applications are deemed not to have been properly made, and not to have been accepted, so that neither the council nor the Court, acting as assessment manager, can decide their merits. The reconfiguration of a lot application was not affected by the amendments, was found to comply with the planning scheme, and could not be refused, although it may be remitted to the council depending on the final orders. Rather than making final orders immediately, the Court adjourned the matter to 4 September 2026 to hear the parties on the appropriate form of orders.
Why this decision matters
The decision has significant implications for the renewable energy sector. It confirms that the 2025 social impact, community benefit and State Code requirements reach solar and battery projects whose applications were made, and even refused, before the amendments commenced, provided the application had not been conclusively decided. Because a Planning and Environment Court appeal is heard anew, an appellant carries the risk of intervening legislative change, and the earlier council decision offers no protection against it. For an application caught in this way, the appeal cannot proceed on its merits; the proponent is effectively returned to the start of the process and must meet the new requirements, including social impact assessment, community benefit agreements, and impact assessment against the new State Codes.
Practical implications
Proponents of solar and battery projects with applications that were on foot when the 2025 amendments commenced should assess carefully whether their application had been conclusively decided before the relevant threshold date, or whether, like X-Elio, it remains exposed to the new regime through an undecided appeal. Where a project is caught, the additional requirements are substantial and should be factored into timing, budgets and community engagement. More generally, the decision is a reminder that, in a hearing anew, the law applied is the law as at the date of the appeal, so proponents and objectors alike need to track legislative change while an appeal is pending.
A note on this update
This article is a general summary and is not legal advice. X-Elio is a first-instance decision on a question of construction on which both parties had argued the other way, and the final orders are yet to be settled. We can advise renewable energy proponents and landowners on how the 2025 amendments and this decision affect a specific project, including the social impact and community benefit requirements, the State Code assessment pathway, and the available options where an application may be caught.
This publication is general in nature. Its content is current at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and you should always seek legal advice based on your particular circumstances prior to making any decisions relating to matters covered by this publication. Certain details may have been sourced from external references, and we cannot assure the accuracy or timeliness of such information.